I think I will have to go out and kill myself. Oh wait. Not. Lol IRC.
LRC, so you derail your OWN thread to deflect us from the fact that you have not once answered any of our objections, or ONCE provided one piece of evidence for your resurrection crap , and why that would be any different from all the others. So thank's for the nice try. Evidence for the resurrection ? Are you going to go find some, or are you going to STFU and go away ?

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

I wouldn't mind discussing the KCA again. It HAS been a while since it was last discussed.

The original thread reveals several atheists shouting valid rebuttals at you, however. So I may just be repeating what was already stated. Let me try to attempt a different way of approaching it.

First, like the others has said, the first premise IS flawed (everything that begins to exist has a cause). We are basing that premise on things we have observed - objects and items. The universe (which we are trying to make fit into the "everything" category) is not a physical thing. It is a set of laws, in the way we refer to the Laws of Nature. Gravity, entropy, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and all the laws of the scientific fields... not once have we ever observed a law of the universe being caused by something. The things within the system, governed by the laws, sure. But the laws themselves have always been, as long as we could observe. It's like a math formula. Addition has always been a system. YOU have to cause the numbers by pushing the calculator buttons, but YOU didn't create the laws of arithmetic.

If the first premise WAS solid, it would defeat the conclusion that theists force in at the end.

Everything that exists has a cause.
The universe exists.
The universe has a cause.

That, by itself, is a totally rational deduction. We can conclude as thinking human beings that the universe most likely had a cause, and that we don't know what that cause was.

But then some Christian bursts into the scientific meeting and proclaims, "God caused the universe!" Well if you apply God to our formula, it doesn't work.

Everything that exists has a cause.
God (apparently) exists.
God has no cause.

So either God doesn't exist or our first premise is flawed.

And since time and existence were theorized to have started with the singularity and the Big Bang, God is a force that would have to exist outside of time and space since "before" is an application of time, making "before the Big Bang" a nonsensical term. Like a square triangle. And if you're stating that some "magical, outside of time and space, infinite God-force caused the universe" ... why should we care? If he's outside time and space, this space-being can't influence us. There would have to be a timeline for the force to intervene on Tuesday and then again (subsequently) on Thursday. There's no reason to start attributing the Big Bang to a anthropomorphic deity. We have zero reason to assume that.

Here's a suggestion. Consider a black hole. It's so powerful, it sucks in all matter, including light and even time itself. No one knows what happens to all that matter, light, and time in the center of a black hole. Now consider another universe and the inverse of a black hole. What if all that insane gravity were reversed? Wouldn't it look exactly like the Big Bang? Time, light, energy, matter, all shooting outward forcefully? Why not conclude that this is more probable than a genie willing things into existence?

And finally, the first premise is flawed because we have never observed anything that began to exist. Nothing on this planet BEGAN to exist. Every molecule, atom, particle, and chemical that exists in your body was already here in this universe before you "began to exist." You are stardust, coming together for a brief period of time before dispersing back into the cosmos. I didn't make a cake come from nothingness. I assembled it using preexisting ingredients that were already here.

There. I'm sure most of that was covered already in the other thread.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

I don't suffer fools Pussy Cat IRC. You have proven yourself to be one. You assert things, and never offer a shred of supporting documentation, or expert references for anything. You are clearly an expert in nothing, therefore there is no reason to accept anything you say, without documentation. YOU deralied your own thread with Cosmology, then refused to say anthing coherent about it, and provided no documentation, or support for anything, just like the resurrection. You attempted to say that Christians dying for their cause was unique, and I proved it was not. I demonstrated the Romans were in the process in the 1st Century of determining was "historical" meant, and clearly from Josephus, (even the stuff we know is genuine), it's obvious they accepted biased material as "historical" depending on the interets of the writer. YOU said the other thread was not about the existence of god, YOU introduced Cosmology. YOU offered no proof of the resurrection, and constantly asserted crap with no support or reference. I stand by everything I said there, no matter how disparaging your interpretation. YOU STILL have offered NOT ONE BIT of supporting documentation for anything you say. It's all opinions based on nothing except your presumtuous worthless opinions. You have proven nothing about "god" sentient or otherwise. If there were a "sentient being" that would require space-time. Explain how THAT happens before time existed. More assertions. No evidence. Only pathetic opinions we are expected to accept because Pussy Cat IRC accepts them. Too bad. Fail. Tell me where, (other than Drake), a reputable Cosmologist talks about aliens. Exactly, and who and where. You can't. All you have to do is go anywhere to YouTube. The KCA IS debunked by a numner of people. You lied, Pussy Cat IRC. You know it has. You may not understand why, or bother to listen. It has. There is no "in the beginning" if (space)time doesn't exist yet. Obviously you are too stupid to get the problem of Causality BEFORE Causality was "caused". Premises are self asserted, BUT they have to be demonstrated and based on EVIDENCE, or they are meaningless, as yours are. I can say my premise is there are Pink Unicorns and go from there. THAT is as meaningful as anything you have said, and by your stated standard, just as legitimate. We don't know (yet) if the universe or anything existed before the Big Bang, or this one. YOU making up a fairy story about what it might have been is not helpful. (BTW omnia saecula saeculorum includes the article, thus "et" is incorrect Latin. You don't intimidate anyone with incorrectly using Latin, or anything else, boy). Obviously you don't even get what the "word salad" means, and arguing with anyone as stupid as you is a waste of time. You have proven yourself to not be up tp this task here, over and over.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

(30-01-2013 04:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I don't suffer fools Pussy Cat IRC. You have proven yourself to be one. You assert things, and never offer a shred of supporting documentation, or expert references for anything. You are clearly an expert in nothing, therefore there is no reason to accept anything you say, without documentation. YOU deralied your own thread with Cosmology, then refused to say anthing coherent about it, and provided no documentation, or support for anything, just like the resurrection. You attempted to say that Christians dying for their cause was unique, and I proved it was not. I demonstrated the Romans were in the process in the 1st Century of determining was "historical" meant, and cleaaly from Josephus, (even the stuff we know is genuine), it's obvious they accepted biased material as "historical" depending on the interets of the writer. YOU said the other thread was not about the existence of god, YOU introduced Cosmology. YOU offered no proof of the resurrection, and constantly asserted crap with no support or reference. I stand by everything I said there, no matter how disparaging your interpretation. YOU STILL have offered NOT ONE BIT of supporting documentation for anything you say. It's all opinions based on nothing except your presumtuous worthless opinions. You have proven nothing about "god" sentient or otherwise. If there were a "sentient being" that would require space-time. Explain how THAT happens before time existed. More assertions. No evidence. Only pathetic opinions we are expected to accept because Pussy Cat IRC accepts them. Too bed. Fail. Tell me where, (other than Drake), a reputable Cosmologist talks about aliens. Exactly, and who and where. You can't. ALl you have to do is go anywhere to YouTube. The KCA IS debunked by a numner of people. You lied, Pussy Cat IRC. You know it has. You may not understand why, or bother to listen. It has. There is no "in the beginning" if (space)time doesn't exist yet. Obviously you are too stupid to get the problem of Causality BEFORE Causality was "caused". Premises are self asserted, BUT they have to be demonstrated and based on EVIDENCE, or they are meaningless, as yours are. I can say my premise is there are Pink Unicorns and go from there. THAT is as meaningful as anything you have said, and by your stated standard just as legitimate. We don't know (yet) if the universe or anything existed before the Big Bang, or this one. YOU making up a fairy story about what it might have been is not helpful. (BTW omnia saecula saeculorum includes the article, thus "et" is incorrect Latin. You don't intimidate anyone with incorrectly using Latin, or anything else, boy). Obviously you don't even get what the "word salad" means, and arguing with anyone as stupid as you is a waste of time. You have proven yourself to not be up tp this task here, over and over.

I wouldn't mind discussing the KCA again. It HAS been a while since it was last discussed.

The original thread reveals several atheists shouting valid rebuttals at you, however. So I may just be repeating what was already stated. Let me try to attempt a different way of approaching it.

First, like the others has said, the first premise IS flawed (everything that begins to exist has a cause). We are basing that premise on things we have observed - objects and items. The universe (which we are trying to make fit into the "everything" category) is not a physical thing. It is a set of laws, in the way we refer to the Laws of Nature. Gravity, entropy, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and all the laws of the scientific fields... not once have we ever observed a law of the universe being caused by something. The things within the system, governed by the laws, sure. But the laws themselves have always been, as long as we could observe. It's like a math formula. Addition has always been a system. YOU have to cause the numbers by pushing the calculator buttons, but YOU didn't create the laws of arithmetic.

If the first premise WAS solid, it would defeat the conclusion that theists force in at the end.

Everything that exists has a cause.
The universe exists.
The universe has a cause.

That, by itself, is a totally rational deduction. We can conclude as thinking human beings that the universe most likely had a cause, and that we don't know what that cause was.

But then some Christian bursts into the scientific meeting and proclaims, "God caused the universe!" Well if you apply God to our formula, it doesn't work.

Everything that exists has a cause.
God (apparently) exists.
God has no cause.

So either God doesn't exist or our first premise is flawed.

And since time and existence were theorized to have started with the singularity and the Big Bang, God is a force that would have to exist outside of time and space since "before" is an application of time, making "before the Big Bang" a nonsensical term. Like a square triangle. And if you're stating that some "magical, outside of time and space, infinite God-force caused the universe" ... why should we care? If he's outside time and space, this space-being can't influence us. There would have to be a timeline for the force to intervene on Tuesday and then again (subsequently) on Thursday. There's no reason to start attributing the Big Bang to a anthropomorphic deity. We have zero reason to assume that.

Here's a suggestion. Consider a black hole. It's so powerful, it sucks in all matter, including light and even time itself. No one knows what happens to all that matter, light, and time in the center of a black hole. Now consider another universe and the inverse of a black hole. What if all that insane gravity were reversed? Wouldn't it look exactly like the Big Bang? Time, light, energy, matter, all shooting outward forcefully? Why not conclude that this is more probable than a genie willing things into existence?

And finally, the first premise is flawed because we have never observed anything that began to exist. Nothing on this planet BEGAN to exist. Every molecule, atom, particle, and chemical that exists in your body was already here in this universe before you "began to exist." You are stardust, coming together for a brief period of time before dispersing back into the cosmos. I didn't make a cake come from nothingness. I assembled it using preexisting ingredients that were already here.

There. I'm sure most of that was covered already in the other thread.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the following argument is "Rational":

Everything that exists has a cause.

The universe exists.

The universe has a cause.

You see, you assume that everything that exist has a cause, but you can't know that. Please let me explain.

The Christian Apologist is an expert at equivocation by which he smuggles concepts into arguments, and the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a concept smuggler's wet dream. Ya' see, when we think of "That which exists has a cause", we most often think of two parents procreating and making a baby, an auto-worker making a car or a baker baking some bread or something like that. In each case, materials are altered by directed action and an end-product is created that did not exist before. However, these particular products did not come into "Existence" the same way that the Universe "came into existence" or may have "come into existence". You see, all the matter and energy needed to create the baby, the car and the bread already existed prior to the acts that rearranged this matter and energy into the final product (i.e., baby, bread, car). Not the same can be said of the Universe.

If all the energy in the Universe that accounted for, and resulted in, all the matter and energy we have today in the Universe were "Created", then we do not know that with any certainty - none at all. The best Physics has been able to do is Hypothesize a Universe so small that it consisted of a point source of energy so dense and hot (i.e., greater than the Plank Temperature) that the laws of the Universe that we know no longer apply. Beyond this point, nothing further can be hypothesized with any credulity. Thus, all we can know is that the "Universe as-we-know-it" began to exist about 13.72 Billion years ago, but when the Universe absolutely "Began to Exist" is still a mystery - if it is even a valid question. For all we know the energy needed to create the Universe has always existed and our universe may be a spontaneous re-arrangement of this energy into the Universe we see today. Or maybe not.

Thus, we can't say that the Universe "Began to Exist" in an absolute sense or that the Universe's existence has a cause. As a result, all the Cosmological Arguments fail at Premise 1.

(30-01-2013 09:14 PM)Julius Wrote: ...Thus, we can't say that the Universe "Began to Exist" in an absolute sense or that the Universe's existence has a cause. As a result, all the Cosmological Arguments fail at Premise 1.

I hope this helps. Thanks.

Not really.
Is the universe 13.7 billion years old or not?
Because that is central to P1.

If you assert that the universe has always existed...that it never began to exist, THEN you can reject P1 and replace it with your own negation.

P1 No things ever come into existence.
P2 The universe is a thing
C. Therefore the universe has always existed.

But do you see how I am now going to attack this argument with evidence that the planet earth has not always existed and I'm going to start asking awkward questions about how you claim to know what happened before the big bang.

I'm going to assail your apparent certainty with questions about how long the stuff from which the universe is made, can perpetually expand before it ceases to exist.

And I'm going to ask whether there might be another universe somewhere that WAS created.